IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.S. SUPEHIA, D.A. JOSHI, JJ.
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER – Appellant
Versus
PATEL RAMESHBHAI MANILAL – Respondent
First Appeal Nos. 4340, 4341, 4342, 4347, 4348, 4349, 4351, 4377, 4378, 4379, 4380, 4381, 4382, 4383, 4384, 4385, 4386, 4387, 4388, 4389, 4390, 4391, 4392, 4393, 4394, 4395, 4396, 4397, 4398, 4399, 4400, 4401, 4402, 4403, 4404, 4405, 4406, 4407, 4408, 4409, 4410, 4411, 4412, 4413, 4414, 4415, 4440, 4441, 4442, 4443, 4444, 4445, 4446, 4447, 4448, 4449, 4450, 4451, 4452, 4453, 4454, 4455, 4456, 4457, 4458, 4459, 4508, 4509, 4563, 4565 of 2018, First Appeal Nos. 5189, 5366, 5367 of 2019, First Appeal No. 636 of 2020, First Appeal No. 323 of 2023, Civil Application (For Joining Party) No. 1 of 2022, Civil Application (For Stay) No. 2 of 2018, Cross Objection Nos. 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137 of 2019, Cross Objection Nos. 30, 45, 44, 46 of 2023
Decided On : 05-04-2023
Land Acquisition - Additional Compensation - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 4, Section 6, Section 11, Section 23(1-A), Section 28
Fact of the Case:
The appeals and cross-objections arise from a judgment awarding additional compensation for land acquired for a public purpose. The claimants demanded Rs.10,000/- per sq.mtr. The Reference Court partly allowed the claim and awarded additional compensation, consortium, and running interest.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Reference Court's determination of compensation based on documentary evidence and oral testimony was appropriate and did not require interference. The appeals and cross-objections were dismissed.
Issues: The issues revolved around the determination of additional compensation and whether the Reference Court's decision was appropriate.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court upheld the Reference Court's decision, emphasizing the consideration of documentary evidence and oral testimony in determining the compensation.
Final Decision: The appeals and cross-objections were dismissed, and the amount determined and awarded by the Reference Court was upheld.
JUDGMENT :
A.S. SUPEHIA, J.
1. All the captioned First Appeals along with Cross Objections are heard and finally decided by the common judgment and order, except Special Civil Application No. 13742 of 2018, which was ordered to be heard along with present First Appeals vide order dated 10.11.2022. The same is ordered to be detached from present First Appeals along with Civil Application No. 2 of 2022.
2. First Appeals and Cross Objections emanate from judgment dated 31.7.2017 passed in Land Reference Case No. 1643 of 2011 and allied matters by Land Reference Court, Mehsana, awarding additional compensation of Rs.2707/- per sq.mtr. for road touch land and, for other lands, additional compensation of Rs.2088/- per sq.mtr. has been awarded. The land reference case arise out of the acquisition of land situated at Village-Panchot, Taluka & District-Mehsana for the public purpose for Mehsana by-pass road. Accordingly, appellant no. 1, State authority herein had acquired the lands, after undertaking necessary procedure, as prescribed under the law. Section 4 Notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for the sake of brevity) was published on 11.2.2009. Section 6 Notification under the Act was published on 26.8.2009 and, thereafter, award under Section 11 of the Act was passed on 31.12.2010, wherein and whereby appellant no. 1 awarded compensation for the acquired land at the rate of Rs.118/- sq.mtrs. in case of road touch land and Rs.91/- per sq.mtr. for other parcels of land. Ultimately, the aforesaid acquisition culminated into land reference. The claimants demanded Rs.10,000/- per sq.mtr. After examining oral as well as documentary evidence, vide judgment and award dated 31.7.2017 passed by learned 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mahesana, the reference of the original claimants was partly allowed and it was declared that the claimants would be entitled to an amount of Rs.2,707/- per sq.mtr. for road touch land and Rs.2088/- per sq.mtr. for other parcels of land as additional compensation, over and above the compensation already awarded by Special Land Acquisition Officer and increase at the rate of Rs.12/- p.a. as per the provisions of Section 23 (1-A) of the Act was also granted along amount of consortium at the rate of 30% and running interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of taking over possession till one year and, thereafter, at the rate of 15% p.a. till realization of the amount payable under Section 28 of the Act.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied from aforesaid judgment and award, the appellant-State has filed captioned First Appeals, whereas the claimants have filed cross-objections.
4. Learned AGP, Mr.Jadeja appearing for the State authorities has submitted that the Court below has seriously erred in awarding additional compensation on higher side, over and above the compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. It is submitted that the Court below has not appropriately considered the evidence, which has surfaced on record and has erroneously placed reliance on Exh.149 and 164. It is submitted that the Reference Court has fallen in error in discarding the award of Special Land Acquisition Officer and without assigning any cogent and convincing reasons, the amount of compensation could not have been enhanced. It is submitted that the Reference Court, without ascertaining any award having been passed in the adjoining village or same village and, without considering any comparable instances, the amount could not have been enhanced. Thus, the award is required to be quashed and set aside.
5. Per contra, learned advocate, Mr.Prajapati, appearing for the claimants has submitted that the Reference Court has basically fallen in error in deducting 20% from the final amount of compensation of Rs.2,000 on the basis of distance factor. While placing reliance on the map, it is submitted that Village- Panchot is not far away from Village-Nagalpur. It is submitted that
AI
The determination of compensation in land acquisition cases should be based on a careful consideration of documentary evidence and oral testimony.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of compensation for acquired lands based on evidence, settled legal principles, and comparison of valuation in different villages....
The court may consider the judgment pertaining to lands of the adjoining village and acquired for the same project for fixing the just and reasonable market value of the acquired lands.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that compensation under the Land Acquisition Act cannot be determined based on subsequent notifications for different villages, and the court must ....
Compensation for land acquisition must be based on current market value, informed by recent sale transactions and relevant valuation reports.
The court ruled that compensation for land acquisition must be consistent across similar jurisdictions, applying a 30% reduction for non-municipal areas.
The court affirmed that compensation for acquired land should be calculated with a 20% deduction based on established valuation standards, modifying the Reference Court's decision to reflect correct ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.